Tag Archives: gender

• 3 Comments

•

As a gender role discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving abusers and abuse approaches one.

Godwin's Law:

Basically, Godwin's Law is the natural law of Usenet named after Mike Godwin concerning Usenet "discussions".  It reads, according to the Jargon File:

As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

Fallacy Files says:

In almost every heated debate, one side or the other—often both—plays the "Hitler card", that is, criticizes their opponent's position by associating it in some way with Adolf Hitler or the Nazis in general. This move is so common that it led Mike Godwin to develop the well-known "Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies": "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

No one wants to be associated with Nazism because it has been so thoroughly discredited in both theory and practise, and Hitler of course was its most famous exponent. So, linking an idea with Hitler or Nazism has become a common form of argument ascribing guilt by association. (...)
Playing the Hitler Card demonizes opponents in debate by associating them with evil, and almost always derails the discussion. People naturally resent being associated with Nazism, and are usually angered. In this way, playing the Hitler Card can be an effective distraction in a debate, causing the opponent to lose track of the argument. However, when people become convinced by guilt by association arguments that their political opponents are not just mistaken, but are as evil as Nazis, reasoned debate can give way to violence. So, playing the Hitler Card is more than just a dirty trick in debate, it is often "fighting words".

Let's think for a minute in terms of the gender role "conversation".

try this:

As a gender role discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving abusers and abuse approaches one.

• 14 Comments

•

From Complegalitarian:

So if the relationship is sour, it *must* be because she's not acknowledging his leadership well enough. If she agrees with everything he says and complies in every single way, then there won't be any problems, now will there?

(No problems, but not much of a REAL relationship to speak of, either)... 🙁

I see that particular emphasis as being abusive in and of itself, even if the guy does not resort to physical violence, the emotional violence done to a woman in that kind of a "relationship" is enormous. In effect she ceases to exist.

I guess I would need to ask what "kind of 'relationship'" is being referred to?  Complementarian?  If it is complementarian marriages in general, it becomes more difficult to believe that egalitarians do not see all complementarian men in general are abusive.

If there is a different "kind of 'relationship'" being referred to, it would be helpful to know exactly what is being referred to?

I do have a few thoughts on "ceasing to exist".

Do we "cease to exist" when we are in Christ?  (Since Scripture refers multiple times in both New and Old Testaments as God / Christ relating to His peoples as husband and wife, it's a reasonable thing to do).

Is God / Christ being abusive when He gives us His commandments?

ALSO:  is dying to one's self necessarily a bad thing?  If the giving up on one's self leads to a greater tie of "one-flesh", why is that bad?  Especially since BOTH parties may be required to do exactly that.

• 12 Comments

•

This is the bulk of Charity's comment from a previous post:

So, Ellen, are you saying that for you, the only alternative to unilateral authority is anarchy?

At the time that the Bible was written democracy did not exist anywhere - as far as I know the first emergence of democracy was roughly speaking about 1000 years after the last part of the New Testament was written. I think most Christians would however be in agreement that democracy is not anarchy, and again most Christians would prefer government by democracy to government by dictatorship.

I am not arguing in favour of anarchy, I am arguing in favour of adults treating each other as adults and finding a way of taking decisions together.

Abuse can occur in any system, but there’s a double whammy, if the abuse is shored up by what is seen as legitimate authority in the system.

Well that’s all well and good for the women who as he puts it have “chosen the right man” (and I would by the grace of God count myself among that number), but what about those who haven’t? Isn’t that the same thing as saying “well it’s their own fault for having chosen the wrong man”? I’m sorry, but I can’t go along with that.

Taken piece by piece:

So, Ellen, are you saying that for you, the only alternative to unilateral authority is anarchy?

No more so than having an authority in place is a dictatorship.  No more so than a Godly husband as head of the home is "dictatorial".

By the way, why use "unilateral" as  a qualifier?  What authority is NOT unilateral? Is the qualifier needed by egalitarians to justify the portrayal of a wife as being without rights?  I'm truly wondering.
I like the Oxford University Press's entry

A person, institution, or organization is said to have authority when the power it exercises is supposed legitimate, that is, authorized by some system of norms to which the speaker assents. The emergence of such norms in human society is a complex matter, with convention, habit, custom, and tradition playing different roles. Social contract theory is one kind of solution to the problem of the basis of authority; the evident utility of some rule-governed systems is another. While it is common to find scepticism about particular claims to authority, the idea that human co-ordination (and hence even communication) could exist without it is usually regarded as fanciful.

Back to Charity's comment:

At the time that the Bible was written democracy did not exist anywhere - as far as I know the first emergence of democracy was roughly speaking about 1000 years after the last part of the New Testament was written.

Actually...no.

Democracy was first introduced in the part of world where the New Testament was written...around 500 years BEFORE Christ walked this earth.

450 - 500 BCE

"It is called a government of the people (demokratia) becaue we live in considertion of not the few, but of the majority." - Thucydides on Pericle's view of democracy

Paul, being an educated man, would have had the words to describe democracy.   He would even have had the word to use.

Charity said:

I think most Christians would however be in agreement that democracy is not anarchy, and again most Christians would prefer government by democracy to government by dictatorship.

That is true.  Democracy is not anarchy.  But...in order to have a democracy you must be able to have a majority.  You cannot have a majority with two people, you can only have agreement or a tie.

On the other hand, usinfo.state.gov give the "pillars of democracy"

THE PILLARS OF DEMOCRACY

  • Sovereignty of the people.  (this could easily be the CBMW teaching of our equality before God)
  • Government based upon consent of the governed. (If a woman chooses to marry, that could be the "consent of the governed)
  • Majority rule. (here we have a problem, unless on spouse has the slight edge of the weight of the vote)
  • Minority rights.  (if we give the husband the slight edge of the vote, or the tie-breaker), then the wife, functioning as the minority, is protected by all of the Biblical mandates for how a husband should treat his wife.  I don't have a problem with this)
  • Guarantee of basic human rights. (Covered by Scripture - in either egalitarian or complementarian beliefs)
  • Free and fair elections. (We could call these "marriage vows" and choosing your mate)
  • Equality before the law. (or equality before God)
  • Due process of law. (CBMW urges men to listen to their wives, take feelings, thoughts and convictions into consideration.)
  • Constitutional limits on government. (Or Biblical limits - the limits that are placed by God)
  • Social, economic, and political pluralism. (I'm not exactly sure how this translates to marriage, other than the "yours is yours and mine is mine does seem to be more suited to marital anarchy)
  • Values of tolerance, pragmatism, cooperation, and compromise.  (Read CBMW's "Love and Respect in Marriage"
  • A wise husband will also value his wife's opinions and actively seek her counsel and insights (see Prov. 12:15; 20:18). He will seek to form a consensus with her on all decisions (cf. Matt. 12:25); if she has serious reservations about a particular decision, a wise husband will carefully reconsider the issue before proceeding. The basis for his evaluation must never be, "What will be pleasing or convenient for me?" Rather, he must ask, "What will please and glorify God, and what will be best for my wife (and children)?" If he and his wife cannot agree on the answer to that question, he is the one whom God has authorized to break the tie, and he is the one whom God will hold responsible for the results.

I think that democracy (not dictatorship) better describes a complementarian marriage (there is a majority and minority, there is a tie-breaker, there are the protected rights of the minority, the guarantee of basic human rights)

"Anarchy", on the other hand (per wikipedia)

  • "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder. (Ellen says, absence or inefficiency of a "supreme power" (in a marriage, that would be either the husband or the wife.  In so-called egalitarianism [the so-called being a hat tip to Charity] there is an absence of the primary decision maker.  To this definition fits)
  • "A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder).  (Ellen say, "Again, this sounds like egalitarianism.  No governing person, each individual has liberty, [without the implication of disorder)
  • "Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."  (I recognize that some egalitarians would say that one person has authority in one arena, the other in another arena.  HOWEVER, egalitarians seem to balk at the idea of one person having authority over another)

All in all, "anarchy" (which can come without implication of disorder) seems better suited to egalitarian marriages than does democracy (which by definition is rule by the majority and you cannot have a majority with two people, unless one has a more heavily weighted vote).

And (all in all) "democracy" (with its protection of the minority, the limits placed by consitution (or Bible) and the values of tolerance, pragmatism, cooperation, and compromise) are well within CBMW teaching.

Back to Charity:

I am not arguing in favour of anarchy, I am arguing in favour of adults treating each other as adults and finding a way of taking decisions together.

Right...And this is exactly what CBMW teaches.

  • A wise husband will also value his wife's opinions and actively seek her counsel and insights (see Prov. 12:15; 20:18). He will seek to form a consensus with her on all decisions (cf. Matt. 12:25); if she has serious reservations about a particular decision, a wise husband will carefully reconsider the issue before proceeding. The basis for his evaluation must never be, "What will be pleasing or convenient for me?" Rather, he must ask, "What will please and glorify God, and what will be best for my wife (and children)?" If he and his wife cannot agree on the answer to that question, he is the one whom God has authorized to break the tie, and he is the one whom God will hold responsible for the results.B

Back to Charity:

Abuse can occur in any system, but there’s a double whammy, if the abuse is shored up by what is seen as legitimate authority in the system.

Here are some more actual quotes from CBMW

Unfortunately, secular society and even the Christian church often fail to protect women, and often blame the woman for physical or sexual violence perpetrated upon her.29 Feminists rightly criticize the church for failing to protect women. In one research project on domestic violence, 27% of pastors surveyed said that if a woman submits to her husband as God decrees, then the abuse will stop or God will give the woman grace to endure the beatings.30 In fact, the beatings often do not stop and we should not presume on God's grace to endure avoidable suffering.31 These pastors have misunderstood the nature of domestic violence, and have seriously distorted the nature of biblical submission. Churches should aggressively confront abusers and pursue all means possible to protect vulnerable women. True masculine headship is reflected in the sensitive care and protection of women.

and another

We believe that abuse is sin. It is destructive and evil. Abuse is the hallmark of the devil and is in direct opposition to the purpose of God. Abuse ought not to be tolerated in the Christian community.

Charity, how does this "shore up" abuse?

On the flip side, a wife in marital anarchy could easily neglect her home and family, reasoning "he's not the boss of me!"  There is the potential of abuse on both sides, from both spouses.

Charity says,

Well that’s all well and good for the women who as he puts it have “chosen the right man” (and I would by the grace of God count myself among that number), but what about those who haven’t? Isn’t that the same thing as saying “well it’s their own fault for having chosen the wrong man”? I’m sorry, but I can’t go along with that.

So we should have no consequences for our choices?  (NOTE:  I am NOT saying that an ABUSED woman should stay in an abusive situation.  Abuse is sin, complementarianism is not sin)

But...I know a couple who is in a wretched situation.  They are "egalitarian" and they both have a "you're not the boss of me" attitude.  Neither one has primary responsibility and they both go their own way.  Sexual neglect is the norm.  But, they both have what they chose.

Life without consequences does not exist.

There is one question that has not been answered:  How do egalitarians handle abusive marriages?

• 10 Comments

•

The quote: from Husbands Who Love Like Christ and the Wives Who Submit to Them:

Therefore, headship is not a right to command and control. It's a responsibility to love like Christ: to lay down your life for your wife in servant leadership. And submission is not slavish or coerced or cowering. That's not the way Christ wants the church to respond to his leadership: he wants it to be free and willing and glad and refining and strengthening.

In other words what this passage of Scripture does is two things: it guards against the abuses of headship by telling husbands to love like Jesus; and it guards against the debasing of submission by telling wives to respond the way the church does to Christ.

(...)

There is no contradiction between mutual submission and a relationship of leadership and response. Mutual submission doesn't mean that both partners must submit in exactly the same ways. Christ submitted himself to the church in one way, by a kind of servant-leadership that cost him his life. And the church submits herself to Christ in another way by honoring his leadership and following him in on the Calvary road.

So it is not true that mutual submission rules out the family pattern of Christ-like leadership and church-like submission. Mutual submission doesn't obliterate those roles, it transforms them.

What this means to me:

If we see headship and leadership within the framework of responsibility, not right, it becomes a loving response to a loving God. Godly submission of a godly wife becomes a loving response to a loving husband.

~~~~~~~~~~

The quote: from "Do you believe in 'mutual submission' the way Paul teaches in Ephesians 5:21, 'Submit to one another'?"

Are Christ and the church mutually submitted? They aren't if submission means Christ yields to the authority of the church. But they are if submission means that Christ submitted Himself to suffering and death for the good of the church. That, however, is not how the church submits to Christ. The church submits to Christ by affirming His authority and following His lead. So mutual submission does not mean submitting to each other in the same ways. Therefore, mutual submission does not compromise Christ's headship over the church and it should not compromise the headship of a godly husband.

What this means to me:

The key is love. The key is different. There is no conflict between love / leadership / submission. As sinful mankind, we can inject a conflict where one does not belong, but a man or a woman sinning in an authority structure does not make the structure wrong, it makes the sin wrong.

~~~~~~~~~~

The quote: from "Building a Christ Centered Marriage: How Husbands and Wives Can Complement One Another in Marriage"

The traditional camp, on the other hand, advocates equality before God, but is committed to complementarianism, rather than egalitarianism. This is the belief that, while men and women are equal before God, they serve him in complementary roles which are not always identical and in some cases ought not to be. These complementarians recognize that there is "neither male nor female" in terms of our relationship to God (Gal. 3:28). But they also recognize the other biblical texts which counsel that men and women possess distinct abilities and callings (such as 1 Pet. 3:1-7; Col. 3:18; 1 Tim. 2:9-3:7). In the home there ought to be male headship (though not domination) and womanly submission (though not fearful servility). Complementarians insist that to be truly evangelical we must confess that there is no contradiction over this matter in Scripture, and to be truly biblical we must affirm both the spiritual equality of men and women and also the distinctions and differences in roles that are taught in the Bible.

What this means to me: Men and women should fit together like a jigsaw puzzle - heart to heart, mind to mind, soul to soul. Not like identical and interchangeable gear cogs.

~~~~~~~~~~

The quote: from Armorbearer:

i agree, women are not afforded the courtesy of dignity in many cases, but the problem is not patriarchy. the problem is men acting like buffoons. the remedy then is not feminism and matriarchy or swapping one bully for another, the remedy is mutual submission. rightful authority.

What this means to me: Some parents abuse their children; that does not mean we should remove parental authority. Some pastors are abusive; that does not mean that we should abolish pastoral authority. There are some bad bosses; that does not mean that the position of "boss" is bad. A president may lie under oath, or knowingly accept bad intelligence; that doesn't mean that the office of presidency is evil.
Abuse is sin, it does not follow that the structure is sinful, but the person within that structure.

• 5 Comments

•

This is a beautiful verse about the way a marriage should be handled. I'm still trying to figure out how to get Greek letters in here...

But Young's Literal Translation (awkward but accurate) says:
Defraud not one another, except by consent for a time, that ye may be free for fasting and prayer, and again may come together, that the Adversary may not tempt you because of your incontinence;

A couple of things really popped out at me...

Defraud is just like it sounds. I've done some studies on Old Testament marriage contracts and there were three things that were always guaranteed. A home (the husband provides and the wife maintains), food/oil (the husband provides and the woman prepares) and bed (sexual relations). These three things were so important, if any of these three were denied on a regular basis, it was grounds for divorce. To enter into a marriage and refuse the marraige bed was to defraud the mate of marital rights.

except by consent: this really caught my eye, concerning marriage in general.

sumphonou - sounds like "symphony" and means, in harmonious accord. Isn't that the way a marriage should work? Each half of the whole striving to be in harmonious accord. Just like the word that we get from this, symphony - it doesn't imply that you are in lockstep. Just like a symphony, each partner plays his or her own instrument. One time, one will have the melody, another time, the other will. And each time, their mate will be behind them, harmonizing, supporting. A symphony wouldn't be a symphony if everyone played the same note! So it is with marriage.

pros kairos hina scholazo - for a limited time, in order to give oneself to

fasting and prayer

and again may come together, (be one flesh, husband and wife, give one another comfort and pleasure)

that the Adversary may not tempt you because of your incontinence; How many people have fallen, because their spouse didn't pay attention to the consequences of denying their other half? I submit that a husband or wife that denied his or her spouse is a stumbling block the likes of which few people ever see.

This verse communicates the importance of "one-flesh-ness" and the importance of setting it aside only for the things of God, and then only for limited times.

I would submit that a husband or wife should not have to go without marital relations (unless there are special circumstances that prohibit them) for any longer than they also expect their husband and wife to go without food.  There is no reason for denying one's spouse the comfort and pleasure that a marriage bed should bring.  (The last paragraph has been edited just because it  was an awkward sentence and didn't quite say what I wanted it to say.